RE: fired for working

RE: fired for working (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

LadyPact -> RE: fired for working (1/17/2012 2:35:20 PM)
I'm a little confused by the comment added in the original that linked the article. It seems to Me that the case was about the gal winning her case regarding being denied unemployment, rather than the dismissal that put her in the position for needing them. The employer was justified in letting her go. (Before anybody has My head, I didn't say it was nice. I said it was justified.) There are a number of reasons why it isn't a good idea to have an employee at their work station during time that they are not on the clock. The article did specifically mention a period where the woman had a leave of absence related to stress from a stroke. That's exactly the kind of employee that you want to assure their breaks are really breaks.

tazzygirl -> RE: fired for working (1/17/2012 2:38:56 PM)
The employer didnt need justification to terminate, LP. They only needed it to deny unemployment.

thompsonx -> RE: fired for working (1/17/2012 2:43:12 PM)
quote: But I've never seen an employer decide to pick on a good employee and fire them just to amuse themselves. You obviously do not get out much.

thompsonx -> RE: fired for working (1/17/2012 2:44:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BKSir Frankly, I would have, as an employer myself, commended her on her effort, but explained to her that although yes, that extra half hour of work did add a lot, at the same time, it was wearing and tiring on her, leading to an overall lack of productivity in the long run. And although I'm thankful and appreciative of the effort, it is far more effective to take a bit of a break, refresh and come back with more energy. At which point I would likely, unless I was busy as all fuck, offer to help her my own damn self. For me, hard work, or at least an obvious sincere effort, does not go unrewarded. I think that's part of where we've gone wrong as a productive country in general. But that's another fight for another day. You are preaching to the choir.

thompsonx -> RE: fired for working (1/17/2012 2:46:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I'm a little confused by the comment added in the original that linked the article. It seems to Me that the case was about the gal winning her case regarding being denied unemployment, rather than the dismissal that put her in the position for needing them. The employer was justified in letting her go. (Before anybody has My head, I didn't say it was nice. I said it was justified.) There are a number of reasons why it isn't a good idea to have an employee at their work station during time that they are not on the clock. The article did specifically mention a period where the woman had a leave of absence related to stress from a stroke. That's exactly the kind of employee that you want to assure their breaks are really breaks. I could not agree more.

kalikshama -> RE: fired for working (1/17/2012 3:07:28 PM)
quote: It sounds ridiculous but you can be assured there was more to this firing then working through lunch. That was just the excuse to get rid of her. I’ve had to do the very same thing over the years. Often an employee that is a bad worker will not do something bad enough at any one time to justify firing. So the boss is just waiting for the one mistake to get rid of them. Agreed. The prominent location of Smiley's desk, "which was directly at the front door of the office, made this particularly important for her," according to the human resources director in the court filing. She and Smiley had "many discussions ... over her eating breakfast at her desk," the filing states ... Smiley said her job had became so stressful that she suffered a stroke and was off work for almost three months, beginning July 13, 2009, according to the court filing.

kdsub -> RE: fired for working (1/17/2012 5:16:55 PM)
quote: They can fire her with no reason. This whole thing is about the company trying to prevent her from drawing unemployment. Why do you want to make it about something else It is not something else... if she were not fired she would not need unemployment and it would not have been denied and she would not need to go to court...So the firing is the real reason for all that followed...can you understand that? My comment was only pointing out that there was most likely more to the firing then just the incident used...an opinion. We know nothing of the circumstances that proceeded …we know nothing of her past work history….we know nothing of the companies rules and regulations beyond the one incident. Common sense will tell you that you do not fire a good employee for work through lunch and thereby lend credence that there may have been a past history with this employee. Butch

tazzygirl -> RE: fired for working (1/17/2012 5:32:57 PM)
All we know is that the court decided the reason why she was fired was not an offence that made her not eligible for unemployment. Anything, including your suppositions, are pure conjecture. (smiles)

kdsub -> RE: fired for working (1/17/2012 5:37:56 PM)
quote: Anything, including your suppositions, are pure conjecture. (smiles NOW I understand passive aggressive....[:D] Butch

tazzygirl -> RE: fired for working (1/17/2012 5:38:39 PM)
About time.

kdsub -> RE: fired for working (1/17/2012 5:39:15 PM)
[:D]..Thank you

Kaliko -> RE: fired for working (1/17/2012 5:56:56 PM)
FR~ Regardless if someone has "punched out" or not, if they are working at their desk, that is working time. If that's not documented and compensated for, the organization is in the wrong. We recently went through this very clarification where I work (in NH, at-will state, though I think that's irrelevant to my comments). If an hourly employee works at home, whether they are asked to or not, it is incumbent on the organization to pay them for their time. Same for sitting at your desk. (For hourly employees. Salaried is a different story. They can suck the lifeblood out of me and the state will just watch and laugh. :) Believe me, it was quite a fight to have people accept that they really cannot do extra work on their own time if they so choose, but...they simply can't. There is too much liability for the company. Now, on the flip side, it is a requirement that a lunchtime is provided. It's not a requirement that it's taken. If both sides (employee and employer) are in agreement, an employee can work through their lunch, as long as it is their choice to do so and they will be compensated for that time. Overall, I agree with the supposition that there is more to the story. But as was said, it would purely be conjecture to say so. Which, I guess, I just did.

tazzygirl -> RE: fired for working (1/17/2012 5:59:44 PM)
My job went through this last year, also. The way the gentlemen from Wage board explained it is that our employer is required to give us that time off. What we do with that time is our business. They cannot make us work. But, they could get in trouble of we work off the clock and one of us gets injured. Dont think that is a problem in this case.

Kaliko -> RE: fired for working (1/17/2012 6:22:03 PM)
Yes, the liability for injury was a big part of the discussions.

kdsub -> RE: fired for working (1/17/2012 7:57:32 PM)
quote: Overall, I agree with the supposition that there is more to the story. But as was said, it would purely be conjecture to say so. Which, I guess, I just did. I agree it is pure conjecture... that is my point...some on this thread were condemning the employer when they are not privy to the work history and possible past disciplinary actions according to the companies policies. Now there may be none and the story is as presented but then again there may be a history that the company can not make public by law. We don't know and it is not fair in my opinion to condemn them without all the facts made public. If she had a past history they may have felt justified, even if proven wrong by the courts, to try and deny unemployment. This happens all the time in business of all sizes and types... It is not unusual. What is unusual is the reason for dismissal if she was a good respected employee. This oddity is what made me make think there was more to the firing then working during lunch. Me saying there is more to the story is no less valid then for others to say there is not…None of us have all the facts and should not make general condemnations of anyone… the employee or employer.

LadyPact -> RE: fired for working (1/17/2012 8:01:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The employer didnt need justification to terminate, LP. They only needed it to deny unemployment. It's actually two different things. It wasn't the employer that denied the benefits. That decision was from the state. The only part the employer had to do with that process is to verify "reason for termination" when the woman originally applied for benefits. The judgement call was from a civil servant who denied, rather than approved her claim based on the reason she was let go.

kdsub -> RE: fired for working (1/17/2012 8:12:47 PM)
But the employer has the choice to defend its position or not so it is still up to the employer to go to court or not if the employee appeals. Butch

tazzygirl -> RE: fired for working (1/17/2012 8:18:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The employer didnt need justification to terminate, LP. They only needed it to deny unemployment. It's actually two different things. It wasn't the employer that denied the benefits. That decision was from the state. The only part the employer had to do with that process is to verify "reason for termination" when the woman originally applied for benefits. The judgement call was from a civil servant who denied, rather than approved her claim based on the reason she was let go. But it went through that person, then a few courts. She was actually paid before this judgement. They were looking at reimbursement.

tazzygirl -> RE: fired for working (1/17/2012 8:20:59 PM)
quote: What is unusual is the reason for dismissal if she was a good respected employee. This oddity is what made me make think there was more to the firing then working during lunch. There you go again. You dont want anyone besmirching the employer, but you are freely casting blame on the employee. Ever thought, New boss, old secretary... they didnt get along. He wanted her to quit, she wouldnt, so they found a reason and poof? Oh no, not you, someone has to be to blame, and, of course, it has to be the employee.

kdsub -> RE: fired for working (1/17/2012 8:26:31 PM)
nope you don't read...I said there was not enough information to condemn the employer or employee. I am not placing blame anywhere. Why do you keep accusing me even though I specifically say in black and white otherwise… You just wish it were true… you think you know my inner thoughts and can’t mean what I say… is that it? Butch

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875